• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Nardi v. King, No. 25S-PL-64, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2025).

March 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff “substantially” prevailed in his APRA suit by obtaining a wrongfully withheld public record, even though he received only a portion of all requested records. A plaintiff who has substantially prevailed can recover attorney’s fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims if it is indivisible from the time spent on the successful claim.

Hoagland Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake, No. 25S-PL-66, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2025).

March 24, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Trial court’s dismissal under TR 12(B)(8) should have been a dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is conclusive of the rights of the parties and is res judicata as to any questions that might have been litigated.

Turner v. State, No. 24S-CR-147, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).

March 18, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Defendant is not deprived of the benefit of hindsight when it reveals their conduct was necessary in self-defense, even though that necessity wasn’t fully apparent in the moment

Konkle v. State, No. 24S-CR-207, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).

March 18, 2025 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, M. Massa, Supreme

The eggshell doctrine can be used in criminal cases, including murder. The eggshell skull doctrine is one of causation, and causation is a required element in proving a criminal conviction, it only makes sense that the doctrine be applied for such purposes.

JQR v. State, No. 24S-JV-298, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2025).

March 18, 2025 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Trial court abused its discretion by admitting a juvenile’s statements into evidence without a valid waiver of right. An adverse interest may arise if the evidence shows an adult waives the juvenile’s rights but stands to personally benefit from the waiver to the child’s detriment.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 586
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs